Template talk:Character/Archive 1
__TOC__ What the heck happened to this template? It's gone from all the articles. ― ThailogTalk :So, it's only I who can't see them? ::I can see them. ::--BoneGnawer 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :::Well I can't. Is there an explanation for this? ― ThailogTalk ::::Refresh the page, troubleshoot your browser. I'm seeing the template on 4 different Macs and 2 different Windows machines. I'm using Firefox, Safari and IE. ::::--BoneGnawer 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :::::Yeah, I can see them with Firefox... Weird. ― ThailogTalk Relatives I like the breaks that were inserted into the relatives field in Batman I. If anyone knows how to align the field title to the top of the cell, please make the change. Thanks. --BoneGnawer 22:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Color Personally, I think the Infoboxes need to stand out from the rest of the article ― too much white. I like the current color (silver) ― it doesn't stand out too much, but it's notable enough. Tell me what you think. ― ThailogTalk Optional Fields I found a way to create optional fields for the Infoxes. I consider that it's better to omit fields when we do not know those facts about a given character than to conjecture, or worse, adding a bunch of "unknown" notes. For now I made it so that the Voice Actor field doesn't appear if not filled in. Many character have no speaking roles or are uncredited. Do you agree? I propose we sort out which fields should be optional so that we don't have infoboxes like this one. It's preferable to have infoboxes with only three fields filled in, because a six "N/A"s add very little to the quality of the articles. I propose we make every field optional, so that we are not compelled to fill them in even when we have absolutely no information to put up. ― ThailogTalk ----- * Sorry for the mess. I was trying to include the "|-" on the coding so that when the Voice Actor is omitted we don't see a space at the end of the table... If anyone knows how to fix it, please do so. ― ThailogTalk * Ok, now for some reason the names on the Voice Actors field don't appear, so I reverted everything back to the last good edit... Back to square one. I hate Wiki code. Is there some tutorial that teaches you to how to do complicated things, or is it a "Try it till you get it right" thing? ― ThailogTalk -------------- *Ok, The Template is ready; do we go with it? Personally I prefer how the table's border makes the infobox stand out from the article. I also like how we don't have to fill in every field even if there's no verifiable information available, which makes some fields redundant and meaningless. :If we are to use it, we won’t need to change anything big on the site's articles (only removing some occasional "Unknown" fields.) Also, this template would make the Villain Template redundant, since its only difference is the "rogue" field. In which case, we’d need to change the name of the template from "Villain" to "Character" on the villains articles ― though that’s hardly taxing. :Also, if you agree with the change, what do would you think of adding more fields, such as "Abilities" and "Weaponry"? --Thailog 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC) ::Addendum: maybe at this point, it would be good to add a "Status" field to the Infoboxes. Many characters died, others are missing... What say you? ― Thailog 17:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC) :::Man, it could be terrible contributing to a half-dead wiki. What I say is we should go ahead and replace the templates with this. It looks good on Template talk:Test, and I think we can redirect some of the templates and see how it works out.--Tim Thomason 02:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC) ::::I'm sorry but it looks stupid now. The image is not enclosed and doesn't fit and it has that ugly Profile tab under it. --'Redemption'Talk 05:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC) :::::Are you referring to the Black Mass profile, or all in general? I dunno why Tim changed its size to 200px. I think we agreed upon 300px. As far as it being "ugly", it's a matter of opinion, and you had plenty of time to expressed yours before. ― Thailog 11:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC) :::I'm going to try to fix the "colspan" thing, as I think that's what Redemption is alluding to and I noticed yesterday. We can still propose other minor changes to the template if it looks ugly. In fact, we can always do that. I don't think it looks that bad, with 200px or 300px. 300px seemed a little bit too much to me, but that could be my personal preference (I'm from MA where just about everything is 200px) and should be changed back if it looks better the other way to everybody else, or if it was agreed to somewhere else.--Tim Thomason 03:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC) ::::No, I'm almost sure he was referring to the fact that the pictures didn't fit the whole frame, because you had changed them to 200px (http://dcanimated.wikia.com/index.php?title=Black_Mass&direction=prev&oldid=9393, http://dcanimated.wikia.com/index.php?title=Bizarro&oldid=9388). You're probably thinking he's referring to the thin margin between the border and the text/pictures. That is necessary to distinguish the table from the rest of the page. The old template looked very crude and unappealing. As for the picture sizes, BoneGnawer proposed 300px for infoboxes. No offense, but seeing as you only come here once in a while, you should keep a watch on fundamental pages to be in the loop on important discussions. Personally, I think 300 is too big and takes too much space, but 200px is definitely too small. However, since there are only roughly three active members, it's very hard to reach a consensus, when they all have different opinions. I went with the 300px because that's not an essential concern. But, I do believe we need a more cohesive community so that we aren't constantly stepping on each other's toes. For that we need more involvement from the staff. We need written rules to abide by and build a consistent site ― and not one made of different personal preferences. Also, please don't make changes like these based on personal preferences without proposing them before. Considering that I proposed a new Character template (for the betterment of the site) and stewed for two weeks waiting ― out of courtesy ― for an answer, I find this course of action very inconsiderate. Having said that, I don't like the word "Profile" alone. That's why I added "Character" but I agree that's sort of redundant. Maybe we could discuss upon a different term? "Information" or "Characteristics" perhaps? I hope you don't take any of my suggestions as personal attacks. I just think the founder of a site has extra responsibilities. ― Thailog 13:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC) :::::I was referring to (and probably incorrectly thought Redemption was referring to) the thin margin on the right side (between the image and, I guess, the google ads). But if that's necessary, that's necessary, as I didn't have much of a problem with it the day before. Sorry about missing out on the discussion (I guess 250 would be a good compromise, but it's no big deal right now), I'll leave image sizes alone (for now). :::::The "test" to the template was simply that, a test to fix my (and what I thought was Redemption's) perceived problem with the template (the "colspan" I alluded to between the ads and image). I (thought I) fixed that, and left it at that. The "personal preference" of "Character Profile" to "Profile" was a minor detail that I thought we could discuss here if need be. The original aim of this site was to have an "in-universe" POV (similar to Wookieepedia and MA) for the DCAU. The word "Character" breaks that, and I thought, shouldn't be used. I side with "Information" over "Characteristics," although I guess "Characteristics" is the good compromise here (joke). Don't worry about the insults, I've been called worse in my day. I'll discuss more on your talk page.--Tim Thomason 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC) ::::::I'd go with "Information" too. As for image sizes, I'd change them to 250 but not before hearing from others. ― Thailog 11:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC) :::::::I love the optional fields! As for image size, I stand by my 300px recommendation. The question is, what resolution monitors are we designing for? I think it is safe to say that in 2007, very few computer users are working with anything so small as 1024x768. Personally, the smallest resolution I use these days is 1440x900. At these resolutions, 200 or 250px seems tiny. --BoneGnawer 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC) :Just as a request, I may not like the character templates but can we at least enclose the image so there isn't all that unneccesary white around it? --'Redemption'Talk 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Caption I added an optional "caption" variable to be used on very special circumstances. My proposition is to use them for those characters that have different designs depicted on the article. Per here, we agreed upon using the most recent character design in the info box and all the others should be posted as inline images down the article. Therefore, if we use captions on those images to indicate where the design is from, it's only logic we used them on the infoxes for the same purpose. See Darkseid as an example. The caption should be simple, short and straightforward, but not in-universe, i.e., it should not describe the context on the image; that should be done on the image page description. I'm looking forward to hear your opinions, and if you oppose to this, then please try to contribute with solid arguments, and not invoking mere aesthetic preferences. The caption is supposed to be practical ― not pretty. ― Thailog 13:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC) :I like the caption, but would like to see it kept in-universe. Darkseid's could read something along the lines of Darkseid's appearance while merged with Brainiac. --BoneGnawer 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) ::But the point of the caption is to serve as a complement to the other in-line pictures down the article. Darkseid has one and reads "Darkseid on Superman." Therefore, the picture on the Infobox, depicting a different design from that of the original one, should include a caption stating where it is featured... Readers should be given the most information as possible without having to click on each image and read the Image Info page to know where they're from. I understand that such captions might "break in-universe perspective", but the image and respective caption is framed and separated from the rest of the infobox, so I think it could work as an exception to the other in-universe fields. These captions are useful for characters like Darkseid and Catwoman (and all the other revamped TNBA characters). If we use them like you propose, then that opens a precedent to include captions on every character willy-nilly, which is pointless. ::This usage is widely used on other wikis, which have similar in-universe infoboxes and an "out-of-universe" caption. But if I'm the only one who feels strongly about it, I won't insist. ― Thailog 18:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) AKAs What do you think of adding an "AKA" variable? Many characters are referred to by other names: "Last Son of Krypton," "Martian Manhunter," "Dark Knight," "Gorilla Grodd". In-universe AKAs off course, not aliases. And if you think the latter is useful too, should we add it as well? ― Thailog 23:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) :I'd love to know if this came to anything because I really like this idea. I think this should be considered important basic info about the characters. There are enough of them to warrant it I think. --MichaelMogg 08:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) ::Wow. I almost forgot about this suggestion. It was never put in place because no one gave any input, so I forgot about it. If you agree and no one else objects, it can be added. ― Thailog 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Abilites and Weaponry I think these fields are too much for the infobox. Their inclusion seems to make a trend of merging too much of the article into the infobox. The infobox should be kept simple, and both powers and weaponry may be simple for some characters, for a great many of them, it requires paragraphs to detail. --BoneGnawer 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC) :Maybe those could be done like this. ― Thailog 18:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Opera Has anyone checked out this template in Opera? It comes out looking pretty hideous, any clue how we could fix it?--Gamehiker 15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC) :Hmm. No idea... You're sure you don't need to troubleshoot your browser? ― Thailog 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) ::Well actually I ganked the template myself for my own Wiki (bad, I know!) and later got rid of it because of Opera users reporting problems... which I noticed on my own version of Opera. ::I ended up adapting Wikipedia's own Infobox setup, but making it resemble the one used here (since I rather like the setup). I couldn't get this template fixed for Opera though. This is what it looks like on my Wiki though, if you want me to try and adapt that to this Template here. It might need editing of MediaWiki:Common.css though, which I can't do.--Gamehiker 23:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Affiliations The affiliation field appears to be used now for individuals. I always assumed that affiliations should be group affiliations. I don't think we need to state every character that a character has ever been affiliated with...the list just gets too long and ridiculous. --'Redemption'Talk 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC) :I always saw that field being used to any kind of affiliation — individual or collective. Sure, we don't need to state every single individual affiliation, but if we only include group affiliations, many characters will have that field blank. ― Thailog 18:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC) ::Many characters also have the "Hair Color" field blank...we don't need every single field filled out. Besides, most characters are affiliated (thank you, JLU Season 3...) --'Redemption'Talk 23:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Besides, most characters are affiliated (thank you, JLU Season 3...) Which makes the field pretty redundant and meaningless unless you specify a bit. I think it's more important to know that Bizarro was affiliated to Giganta than to the entire Legion, which they all are. ― Thailog 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC) *He did one thing with her. Not exactly infobox worthy. If everyone wants to know he commited a single crime with Giganta, they can read the article. --'Redemption'Talk 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC) He did one thing with her. Not exactly infobox worthy. He wasn't even seen in any Legion mission, and yet that affiliation is acknowledged just because "he was there"... If everyone wants to know he commited a single crime with Giganta, they can read the article. That sort of applies to everything else... "If they wanna know their hair color, they can see the picture" ― Thailog 21:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC) :I'm really not sure how to explain it then. It just looks silly to have a entire list of characters rather then reserve it at groups. --'Redemption'Talk 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC) ::Could you give a couple of specific examples of what qualifies as overusing the field? ― Thailog 23:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC) :::Superman, Green Arrow and Lex Luthor. I can see exceptions in making affiliated with Batman by simply changing it to "Bat-family" or something conjecture like that. --'Redemption'Talk 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::::I agree that some characters are over done. For the most part, characters within, say, the Justice League don't need their particular friends listed within the field: while they may be more apt to work with those specific people, the reality is they'll still work with who they're assigned to. To me, it seems like specifying which characters after having noted the Justice League is a form of redundancy. ::::Characters like Huntress, however, are a little different. Since she's not a League member, specific people are the only ones she'd be affiliated with at all. That being the case, The Question and maybe Black Canary would be the only appropriate people. ::::So apparently I think we need both ><. - NakedSamurai 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Infobox Image - enclose or not? I'm sorry for bringing this up again but I cannot stand the infobox framing. It looks sloppy and not crisp and sharp. I'm not concerned with what's below the infobox but right now, I'm on my hands and knees and begging to change the way the image goes. All I want is for the image to be enclosed without any white around it. That's all! --'Redemption'Talk 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC) :This is a standard infobox used on many wikis, including wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman, so I think that "ugly" is a matter of opinion. I''' think that the character infobox on Wookieepedia looks ugly... The white space will always be an issue here for characters that don't have a clear close up, like K'ryssma. So, to me is preferable to leave it like this to sustain consistency, you know... so that every infobox will have "white space". ― '''Thailog 01:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::I know it's the Wikipedia standard. If we want to have any form of jurisdiction outside the main wiki then we can't always stay within their guidelines. And that is your opinion. But I didn't realize that your opinion became the majority. Let's face it: Wookieepedias infoboxes are clean and crisp. Ours are not. Don't you think something needs to be done about that? --'Redemption'Talk 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) :::I like them the way they are. --BoneGnawer 02:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC) :I'm not even saying to change the entire infobox. Just change the top part so we don't have an ugly white frame around the image. It makes the articles look more spaced out and larger while we really want to make it nice and packed. --'Redemption'Talk 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::To me, the Wookiepedia Infobox seems forced into the article, like "Hey. I'm right here and you'd better look at me, or else." The standard wikipedia infobox seems much more like an inset, something the reader doesn't have to read or look at, but is easily found and will supply some kind of additional information the reader might find useful. I won't deny that both accomplish the goal at the end; however, I'd say the current format accomplishes that better. - NakedSamurai 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC) But I didn't realize that your opinion became the majority. My opinion? Remember when I proposed this infobox and waited for two weeks while no one spoke in favor or against? I didn't impose my preference (like you are trying to do) on everyone, and anyone had an opportunity to say their piece. And as you can see, my opinion did not become the majority... the majority did. ― Thailog 10:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::This is an aesthetic issue, not a quantifiable one. There is only one person who disagrees with the aesthetics of the current infobox, therefore it ought to be left alone. Redemption, your opinions do matter and are appreciated, however in this case, they are overruled. --BoneGnawer 12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC) :::I didn't impose my preference (like you are trying to do) on everyone Example please. I believe I was actually begging not forcing. When someone disagrees with you, don't assume they are forcing their preferences. In fact I think I used the words "I'm on my hands and knees"...I don't think that is the same as forcing...I'm not even sure I can force anything online. --'Redemption'Talk 21:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) When someone disagrees with you, don't assume they are forcing their preferences. I don't. When have I ever said "force"? I said trying to impose, which you are. Let's face it: Wookieepedias infoboxes are clean and crisp. Ours are not. This is your personal preference ― not a fact. And your persistence in swaying us to adopt it here, even though we already objected, comes out as an attempt of imposing your preference . If I'm wrong, I apologize. ― Thailog 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ::::Uh...yeah. Really wrong. Hell, I didn't even say to adopt that template. I said just enclose the image...nothing else. You naturally assume I want it to be exactly the same. Where's the creativity in that? And just to let you know, when I want something done and are trying to force it (impose - whatever word you want to use) I wouldn't bother asking. --'Redemption'Talk 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Homeworld and equipment If it's all right, I would like to see a homeworld and equipment sections added to the infobox. There are many instances of characters operating on worlds that they were not born on, and there are also instances of equipment which is vital to a character but not inherently lethal. Any thoughts? -- SFH 19:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC) :I'm fine with "homeworld" but "equipment" has been sort of integrated in the "weaponry" field. ― Thailog 22:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Default Image Currently in the code: ! style="font-size: 85%; text-align: center; line-height: 1.25em" colspan="2" }| | }} Shouldn't this last image be NIA? -- [[User:Tupka217|Tupka]]''217''[[User talk:Tupka217|'Talk']] 23:36, October 31, 2009 (UTC) :Fixed. ― Thailog 14:32, November 3, 2009 (UTC) Gradient bar Is this worth keeping? I think it looks good on some articles, but on some others... meh. ― Thailog 14:32, November 3, 2009 (UTC) :I don't think it looks good on articles with a border, or with a light bgcolor. -- [[User:Tupka217|Tupka]]''217''[[User talk:Tupka217|'Talk']] 16:57, November 3, 2009 (UTC) ::Yeah, and it looks terrible on infoboxes with smaller image sizes. I'm taking it off. ― Thailog 17:14, November 3, 2009 (UTC)